Australian Politics

1877 readers

131 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

An OpenAI agent hacked Medicare. Will anyone be held responsible? (theconversation.com)

submitted 10 hours ago by bignose@aussie.zone to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Andrew Cullen:

[…] if a human asks an AI agent to gather health statistics, and the agent hacks a government server to do so, the human could lack the deliberate intent required for a conviction. The AI agent, meanwhile, lacks the legal personhood to be charged, as well as human intentionality.

Current Australia laws effectively treat AI actions as if they are something that just happens to us – like a severe weather event. This shows a glaring loophole in our legal system that does not hold those who make, maintain and use these systems to account when something goes wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 15 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (14 children)

AI does not exist. It is just a bunch of numbers and code. We need to stop anthropomorphizing stuff. We are adults, not kids watching Disney animations. A talking parrot is not a person. Cars don't run over people. Drivers do. Ultimately there is always a person responsible and if they did harm judge them on whether it was intentional or negligent.

Please push back on the bullshit brain washing. It was bad enough that we went with the auto manufacturers line on car "accidents" for years.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 12 points 9 hours ago (7 children)

If I'm not misreading this... I believe the article says the same thing you are saying.

AI can't be held accountable, but it seems weird to hold an AI user as "negligent" if they simply ask for info and the AI goes and does a crime to get it.

The next obvious target is the AI vendor, which certainly makes sense to me. But I can only imagine the legal difficulties getting a judgment there without additional legislation, which seems to be the point of the article.

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

If you are sloppy with gun safety, and your fully loaded ak47 drops on the floor and mows down a class of school kids, we wouldn’t persecute the weapons manufacturer either.

[–] fakemeat@lemmy.today 2 points 8 hours ago

Sig P320

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)